Proving the One Way Twin Paradox: O' Reads T'>0, K Clock Reads More than T

GRDixon
Messages
249
Reaction score
0
In the following, "G" stands for "gamma". Clocks O and O' coincide when they mutually read zero. POV is that of K'.

Prove: When O' reads T'>0, the coincident K clock reads more than T'.

Proof: When O' reads T', O reads T'/G and O' coincides with K clock at x=GvT'. That clock reads xv/(cc) more than O:

T'/G + GvT'v/(cc) = GT' > T'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your proof is correct--another way to see it is just to take the event of O' reading T' as having coordinates x'=0, t'=T' in the K' frame and then plug those into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation, t=G*(t' + vx'/c^2) which gives t=GT' in the K frame. But why do you consider this a paradox? In the K' frame, this clock was still ticking slower than O' the whole time, it's just that it started out reading more than 0 at t'=0. In fact, at t'=0 it must have read GT' - T'/G, so that it did tick forward by T'/G between t'=0 and t'=T'. You can check this using the Lorentz transformation--if we plug in x'=vT' (the position of this clock at t'=0), t'=0 into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation we get t=GT'*(v^2/c^2), and you can see that GT' - T'/G = GT'*(1 - 1/G^2) = GT'*(1 - (1 - v^2/c^2)) = GT'*(v^2/c^2).
 
Last edited:
JesseM said:
Your proof is correct--another way to see it is just to take the event of O' reading T' as having coordinates x'=0, t'=T' in the K' frame and then plug those into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation, t=G*(t' + vx'/c^2) which gives t=GT' in the K frame. But why do you consider this a paradox? In the K' frame, this clock was still ticking slower than O' the whole time, it's just that it started out reading more than 0 at t'=0. In fact, at t'=0 it must have read GT' - T'/G, so that it did tick forward by T'/G between t'=0 and t'=T'. You can check this using the Lorentz transformation--if we plug in x'=vT' (the position of this clock at t'=0), t'=0 into the reverse version of the Lorentz transformation we get t=GT'*(v^2/c^2), and you can see that GT' - T'/G = GT'*(1 - 1/G^2) = GT'*(1 - (1 - v^2/c^2)) = GT'*(v^2/c^2).
A very nice analysis. And of course the Lorentz Xform is always the preferred way to go. It was just that I read about the K clock at x=vT reading more than the K origin clock (from the K' POV) in Griffiths "Intro to ElecDyn." And I wanted to "exercise the idea," so to speak. I would think that, so long as a K' observer remains at rest in K', then the idea of the twin "paradox" applies. If I were to take such a trip, however, I'd probably always switch back to K for my rest frame, at trip's conclusion, and realize that (a) the K origin clock really WAS synchronized with the adjacent K clock at x=vT, and (b) my twin back at the origin really WAS older than I. Bottom line: Same Old Same Old. If I had a dollar for every time this so-called paradox has been discussed in the literature ... Ya Hoo! Thanks for the alternate POV.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top